There seems to be many meanings of Naturalness so it's good to sort the subtleness of each meaning. In the paper depicting the vacuum metastability illustration in the initial message.. the conclusion in the paper started with the sentence "One of the most important questions addressed by the LHC is naturalness.". I found three good reference about naturalness after you emphasized opposite of naturalness is having a theory.. (I thought naturalness means exclusively having equations that gives the values or relationship.. and I mentioned these references so in the future I can refer to these if I forgot them): http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/02/what-does-it-mean-for-string-theory.html "That the mass be natural means, roughly speaking, that getting masses from a calculation should not require the input of finely tuned numbers". https://profmattstrassler.com/artic...ics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/naturalness/ (about unknown physics and effect on the Higgs field I asked about) and https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.01035.pdf "In implementing ’t Hooft’s notion of naturalness, we have so far considered symmetries of a sort familiar from quantum mechanics, generated by a charge operator which is a scalar under rotations. But there is another type of symmetry, allowed by general principles of quantum mechanics and relativity, where the symmetry generators are spinors. This symmetry is known as supersymmetry. We will consider it, ﬁrst, as a global symmetry, but the symmetry can be elevated to a local, gauge symmetry." [...] "it is still possible that nature is “natural”, in the sense of ’t Hooft. Future runs of the LHC might provide evidence for supersymmetry, warped extra dimensions, or some variant of technicolor. But the current experimental situation raises the unsettling possibility that naturalness may not be a good guiding principle. Indeed, naturalness is in tension with another principle: simplicity. Simplicity has a technical meaning: the simplest theory is the one with the smallest number of degrees of freedom consistent with known facts. Contrast, for example, the minimal Standard Model, with its single Higgs doublet, with supersymmetric theories, with their many additional ﬁelds and couplings. So far, the experimental evidence suggests that simplicity is winning. The observed Higgs mass is in tension with expectations from supersymmetric theories, but also technicolor and other proposals." ---- If the masses of the superpartners are very high.. what mechanism in superstring theory besides Kane's (his 0.5 TeV bino was already excluded) that can solve the Hiearchy Problem without 't Hooft notion of naturalness or natural supersymmetry (In the sense of the above paragraph at low masses)? I'm interested for now in theory that can solve for them (instead of Multiverse or real fine tuning between quadratic radiative corrections and the bare mass being put there on purpose by design (if these were the mechanism chosen by nature. Then we should have new fields that can maintain the constants values without possibly any formulas). And is the solution to the Hiearchy Problem independent of the Vacuum metastability issue (to what extend can solution of each be solution of the other)? Thank you.